and they, you know, sure, they got a meeting, but only a person that dislikes donald trump would say that i agreed to make a big commitment. sure, i agreed to take a period of time and come here and meet and that's good, but i think it is great for us as a country and good for them, but what did they do to justify this meeting. secure commitment for complete denuclearization. that's the big thing. they secured the release of three american hostages. they already gave them to us two months ago. these people now living happily back in their homes with their families and it was pretty rough for them, to put it mildly. secured the commitment to recover the remains, including these are of fallen heroes, and they're giving commitment,

starting it immediately to recover the remains. i just went through how many people asked me about it. i was amazed, so many people would ask me, is it possible, is it possible. at that time we had no relationship to chairman kim or to anybody else in north korea. it was a very closed society. so we're getting the remains back. secured the halt of all missile and nuclear tests for how long has it been, seven months, haven't had a missile go off. for seven months haven't had a nuclear test, haven't had a nuclear explosion. i remember a nuclear event took place, 8.8 on the richter scale. they announced, heard it on the radio, they announced that a massive earthquake took place somewhere in asia. and then they said it was in north korea, then found out it was a nuclear test. i said i never heard of a richter scale in the high 8s. if you look, there's been no

missile launches. they've blown up their missile area, that's going to take place. that's not written into the contract, we're going to give you the exact details on that, but they secured all missiles and nuclear tests, secured closure of their single primary nuclear test site, all three of them, in an area that's common around each other. they secured the closure. they secured the commitment to destroy the missile engine testing site. that was not in your agreement. i got that after we signed the agreement. i said do me a favor. we've got this missile engine testing site, we know where it is because of the heat. it is incredible the equipment we have to be honest with you. i said can you close it up. they're going to close it up. we maintain the ability to

continue to apply sanctions. so we're applying sanctions. i had 300 sanctions i was ready to pi on last week, i said i can't put on sanctions when getting ready to meet. i thought it was disrespectful. 300 powerful ones. i said it would be disrespectful. jennifer, when you look at all those things that we got, and what we got are hostages back, i didn't pay 1.8 billion in cash like the hostages that came back from iran which was a disgraceful situation what took place. we've gotten a lot. when i hear somebody in the media say that president trump has agreed to meet, like it is not a big deal to me. i think we should meet on a lot of different topics, not just this one. i believe a lot of great things can happen. yes, go ahead, please. >> sir, you just listed off a lot of things you said you got

for the meeting. wasn't too long ago you said we define success by north korea agreeing to give up nuclear weapons. >> that's what they're doing. >> press kim jong-un for complete verifiable irreversible -- >> i did honestly. >> can you say why you didn't secure those details in this agreement. >> there's no time. i'm here one day. we're together many hours intensively. the process is now going to take place. i would be surprised, mike, if they haven't started already. they have started. they blew up their sites, blew up their testing site. but i will say he knew prior to coming. this wasn't like a surprise, wasn't like we never discussed it. we discussed it. mike discussed it very strongly with his counter part in north korea. they knew this was -- let's say they didn't agree, then i couldn't sign any agreement.

there was no agreement could be signed. so they understood that. it wasn't a big point today because this had been taken care of more than any other thing because it was all about this. this has been taken care of before we got here. when we brought that up today, you see the language that's strong. it is in the document. yes, ma'am. >> thank you, mr. president, could you talk about the military consequences for north korea if they don't follow through on the commitments they talked about? >> that's a tough thing to talk about because i don't want to be threatening. they understood that. you have seen what was perhaps was going to happen. seoul has 28 million people. we think we have big cities. new york has 8 million people. think it is a big city. seoul has 28 million people. think about it. and it is right next to the border. right next to the dmz. it is right there.

if this would have happened, i think i've heard 100,000 people, i think you could have lost 20 million people, 30 million people. this is really an honor for me to be doing this. potentially, you could have lost 30, 40, 50 million people. the city of seoul, one of the biggest cities in the world is right next to the border. >> no longer about fire and fury. >> at the time we needed fire and fury. we could not allow that capability from the standpoint of the united states. and certainly japan wasn't going to allow it either. japan was right next door. >> can you tell us about the video you showed before this. >> yeah. >> when did you show that to kim. >> today. yeah. we had it made up by some, i hope you liked it. i thought it was good. i thought it was interesting enough to show. one in english, one in korean.

we had it made up. i showed it to him today. actually during the meeting, toward the end of the meeting. and i think he loved it. they were given, he didn't have a big screen like you have the luxury of having, we didn't need it, we had it on a cassette, an ipad, and they played it, and about eight of their representatives were watching it, and i thought they were fascinated by it. i thought it was well done. i showed you because that's the future. that could very well be the future. the other alternative is not a good alternative. just not good. but i showed it because i really want him to do something. i don't think i had to show it because i really believe he wants to get it done. yes, go ahead. how is staten island ferry doing, okay? he wrote the best story about me with staten island ferry, after that has never written a good

story, i don't know what happened. it is a long time ago. >> mr. president, it has been a busy week on the international stage. you're leaving the summit here in singapore, having determined that kim jong-un is a talented man. you left the g7 summit in canada having determined that prime minister trudeau is weak and dishonest. what do you say to america's allies who worry that you might be jeopardizing our long term alliances and worry you might be treating our historic friends as enemies and historic enemies as friends. >> first of all, i think it is a very fair question. i had a very good meeting with the g7 and i left the meeting and i'll be honest, we're being taken advantage of by virtually every one of those countries very, very seriously. now, the united states because of bad management at the top, because of presidents that didn't care about trade or didn't understand it or whatever reason, for many years with china being obviously the most successful at it, but the

european union second, 151 billion we lost, they were represented at the meeting. and we're being taken advantage of on trade.nada ds have very b advantages over us in terms of trade deficits. we have a big trade deficit with canada. i was reading where it is actually a surplus, it is not a surplus. it is either 17 but could be 100. they put out a document, i don't know if you saw it, they didn't want me to see it but we found it. perhaps they were trying to show the power they have. it is close to $100 billion a year loss with canada. they don't take our farm products, many of them. they charge what was 270%, but somebody told me the other day a few months ago they raised it to 295% for dairy products, and it is unfair to our farmers and very unfair to people of our country, the workers, farmers, the companies, and we are not able to trade. they have tremendous barriers up and tremendous tariffs.

when i put in a counter veiling tariff to get us up so the balance isn't so much, it is like this, they said that's so terrible. i said what's terrible. we have to catch you, we have to have a little balance, even if it is not complete, we have to have balance. i say this with many countries. anyway, we finished the meeting, everybody was happy and i agree to something, and demanded changes are made. the picture with angela merkel who i get along with very well where i'm sitting like this, we're waiting for the final document with the changes i requested. it was a very friendly, i know it didn't look friendly, it was reported nasty both ways, i was angry at her or something. actually, we were just talking, the whole group about something unrelated to everything, very friendly, waiting nor the document to come back so i could read it before i leave. anyway, i left and it was very

friendly. i got onto the plane, i think justin probably didn't know air force one has about 20 televisions and i see the television and he is giving a news conference about how he will not be pushed around, we just shook hands, it was very friendly. look, countries cannot continue to take advantage of us on trade. the numbers are out. over the last couple of years and over the last many years, but over the last couple of years, this country has lost 800 billion dollars on trade with other countries. the biggest one being china. $800 billion. 151 billion with the european union. they don't take our agricultural products, barely. don't take a lot of what we have, yet send mercedes to us, bmws by the millions. it is very unfair and unfair to our workers and i am going to straighten it out and it won't

be tough. all right? thank you. go ahead. i would like to involve congress, yes. i have a good relationship with justin trudeau, i did, other than he had a news conference that he had because he assumed i was in an airplane and wasn't watching. he learned that's going to cost a lot of money for the people of canada. he learned. you can't do that. you can't do that. we left, we had a good relationship. i've had a good relationship with justin. i have a very good relationship with angela merkel, but when nato, we're paying 4.2%, she pays much smaller than we do. we're paying for -- anyone can

say from 60 to 90% of nato, and we are protecting countries of europe. and then on top of us, they kill us on trade. you can't have it that way. unfair to our taxpayers and people. no. i have a good relationship with justin and i have i think a very good relationship with chairman kim right now, i really do. i hope it's good because if it is, we're going to solve a big problem. should we keep going for a little while? i don't know. it is up to the legendary sarah huckabee sanders. should we keep going, sarah? we'll go. i don't care. just means we get home a little later in the evening, right? yeah, go ahead, sure. go ahead. >> hi, mr. president. >> how are you? >> welcome to the country. i hope you enjoyed our food. >> beautiful country. i did.

>> i just wanted to find out, you describe this as a process. what is the next step. on-going dialogue? >> we're getting together next week to go into the details. secretary pompeo, next week with john bolton, the entire team to go over the details and get this stuff done. we want to get it done, he wants to get it done. we're also working very much with south korea, working with japan. we're working with china. to a lesser extent, but we're working with china. >> coming back to singapore? >> i would come back gladly. your prime minister was fantastic. we were with him yesterday, he has done a great job, very welcoming. probably made a difference actually. great place. thank you very much. yes, ma'am. >> thank you, mr. president. what was it about that first interaction with chairman kim that made you decide not to walk away after you said you would know within the first minute if

he was sincere. >> i said that about relationships, i said that about people. you know in the first second. i was generous, said five seconds. the first second in some cases. sometimes it doesn't work out. sometimes it does. from the beginning we got along. there's been a lot of ground work. this isn't like we went and started talking about as you know, right, we didn't just come in, start talking about these very complex subjects that have been going on for 70 years. we have been discussing this for months. once the rhetoric stopped, once they did a great thing, you know, north korea did a great thing by going to the olympics because the olympics and president moon will tell you this, the olympics was not exactly doing great. people didn't feel like being bombed out of the opening ceremony, they weren't exactly selling tickets, and as soon as

the chairman, chairman kim, said let's participate in the olympics, it sold like wildfire and was a great success as an olympics. a great success. he did a great thing. but since that time, pretty much since that time because as you know, a delegation came from south korea who met with north korea, came to the white house, told me lots of things, including the fact that they would be willing to denuke. have one of their great people here today that they were willing to denuke. once that started, we have been really talking about that from the end of the olympics when the whole delegation came to say various things, including denuking. >> in the document new york agreed to denuclearization, to borrow a phrase you used to criticize predecessors and political poenlopponents, how d

ensure they're all talk, no action? >> can you assure everything? you can't assure anything. all i can say is they want to make a deal. that's what i do, my whole life has been deals. i have done great at it. that's what i do. i know when somebody wants to deal and i know when somebody doesn't. a lot of politicians don't, but it is my thing. again, this really could have been done easier a long time ago. but i know, i just feel strongly, my instinct, my ability or talent, they want to make a deal, and making a deal is a great thing for the world, also a great thing for china. i can't imagine that china is happy with somebody having nuclear weapons so close. so, you know, china was very helpful. can anybody be certain. we're going to be certain soon, the negotiations continue. thank you very much.

go ahead. >> you mention that you have raised extensively the issue of human rights with chairman kim. >> yes. >> i wonder what you say to the group of people that have no ability whatsoever to hear or see the press conference, the 100,000 north koreans kept in a network of gu lags. have you betrayed them by legitimizing pyongyang? >> no, i think things will change, there's nothing i can say, all i can do is do what i can do. we have to stop the nuclearization, and do other things and that's an important thing. at a certain point, hopefully you can ask a more positive question or make a statement. not much i can do now. at a certain point i believe he is going to do things about it. i think they're one of the great winners today, that large group of people you're talking about. ultimately, they're one of the great winners as a group. yes, sir.

go ahead. >> would you ever consider removing sanctions without significant improvement in the human rights situation? >> no, i want significant improvement. i want to know it won't be happening. again, once you start that process, there will be a point at which even though you won't be finished for awhile because it can't happen scientifically or mechanically, but you're not going to be able to go back. once we reach that point, i'll give that very serious thought. yes, go ahead. you first. >> mr. president, did you also discuss the cost of denuclearization and how north korea is about to foot the bill for the crippling sanctions remaining in place. >> i think south korea and i think that japan will help them greatly. i think they're prepared to help them. they know they have to help them. i think they're going to help them greatly. we won't have to help them. the united states has been paying a big price in a lot of different places. south korea which obviously is next door in japan, which

essentially is next door are going to be helping them, doing a generous job, a terrific job. they will be helping them. yes, ma'am. go ahead. yes. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you. >> i would like to follow up on steve's question. he asked how long it would take to denuclearize the peninsula. you said a long time. what does that mean. >> we will do it as fast as can be done scientifically and mechanically. i don't think, i mean, i read horror stories, it is a 15 year process, assuming you want to do it quickly, i don't believe that. i think whoever wrote that is wrong. there will be a point at which when you're 20% through, you can't go back. i had an uncle, great professor for i believe 40 years at mit, i used to discuss nuclear with him all the time. he was a great expert, a great,

brilliant genius, dr. john trump at mit. i think he was there 40 years. head of mit sent me a book on my uncle. we used to talk about nuclear. you're talking about a very complex subject. it is not just like oh, gee, let's get rid of the nukes, it takes a period of time. the main period of time is that first period, when you hit a certain point, you can't go back, very hard to go back. >> how long will that take? >> we don't know, but it will g. >> thanks, mr. president. you alluded at the beginning the chinese are not doing as great a job securing the border as before. you express doubts when kim went to see president xi, the russian foreign minister was in pyongyang, said there shouldn't be sanctions while negotiations are under way, and the south koreans are talking about restoring some form of trade. with all of those players

appearing to be moving toward eroding sanctions, how can you keep the sanctions regime in place, what leverage do you have on these countries? >> we have a lot of leverage, we have tremendous leverage. i do believe that china despite my relationship with president xi, a man i have great respect for and like a lot, we're having tough talks on trade. and i think that probably effects china somewhat, but i have to do what i have to do. i think over the last two months, the border is more open than when we first started, but that is what it is we have to do. we have a tremendous, tremendous deficit in trade, commonly known as trade deficit. tremendous deficit in trade with china. we have to do something about it. we can't continue to let that happen. i think that has had an impact on my relationship in terms of

the border. i don't think it has a relationship, i don't think it effects my feeling or my relationship to president xi, but when we first started, we weren't ready to go that route. and as we started preparing and getting ready to do that, that's had impact on the border, which is a shame. but i have to do it. i have no choice. for our country, i have to do it. south korea will do whatever is necessary to get a deal done. that means we can't trade, not going to trade. definitely not going to trade. if they think and they would do this with our concurrence, if they think that they can do some work because we're very far down the line, we're actually very far. that document when you read it today, that's far down the line. that's not something that just happened to be put together. this was done over months. and again, the rhetoric was important and sanctions were important. i don't know which one was more important. they were both important.

yes, go ahead. >> mr. president, david sanger, "new york times." wondering if you could give us some sense of whether chairman kim told you how many nuclear weapons he believes he has made, whether he is willing to turn those over first, and then whether in your mind you need to do more than was done in the iran deal for dismantling the both uranium and plutonium processes, whether or not you had a sense that chairman kim really understood what that involves and had a timetable in his own mind of shutting that. >> well, david, i can tell you, he understands. he understands it so well. he understands it better than the people that are doing the work for him. that is an easy one. as far as what he has, it is substantial. very substantial. the timing will go quickly. i believe you'll see some good

action. i mean, as an example, one of the things with the missile site i think you're surprised to hear, that was a throw in at the end, the missile site. i really believe, david, it is going to go very quickly. i really believe it is going to go fast. and it is a substantial arsenal. no question about it. i used to say maybe it is all talk, no action. but we have pretty good intelligence into that, although probably less there than any other country. you understand that maybe better than anybody in the room, probably less there than any other country. but we have enough intelligence to know what they have is very substantial. this is why, david, i always say this shouldn't have taken place so late into the process. wouldn't this have been better five years ago or 20 years ago or 15 years ago and we didn't have to worry about not having a successful meeting like today. and i still love my first interview with you, david.

still have that interview actually. yeah, go ahead. thank you. >> a second summit with the chairman in pyongyang or -- >> we haven't set that up. we'll probably need another summit. we'll probably need or meeting, use a different term, but we'll probably need another one. i will say this, we're much further along than i would have thought. i told people i didn't want to build up people's hopes too much, i told people i thought this would be a successful meeting if we got along. we developed a relationship. and we could have maybe gotten to this point in three or four months from now, but it really happened very quickly. a lot of that is because of the foundation that was put down before we met. a lot of things happened very fast. we didn't have as an example bringing back the remains, that

was not one of the things that was on our agenda today, brought it up at the very end because so many people talked to me about it. i brought it up at the very end, and he was very gracious and instead of saying let's talk about it next time, he said it makes sense, we will do it. he knew, they know where many of those incredible people are, where they're buried, along roads, along highways, along paths usually. because our soldiers were moving back and forth and had to move rapidly, very sad. but he knew. and that was brought up at the very end, and you know, it was great that he was able to do it. a lot of people are going to be very happy about that. yes, go ahead, please. >> congratulations. >> thank you. appreciate it. really beautiful what you do. go ahead. >> so you --

>> now i'll get this killer question. >> i want to talk about the future of north korea, specifically the people. kim jong-un is saying he is wanting a brighter future with prosperity for his people, they live very oppressed. you showed him a picture of what the future could be like. do you have an idea of the model he would like to go towards, economically, is he open to more economic freedom? >> it's a good question. you saw a tape today. i think it was done really well. that was done at the highest level of future development. i told him, you may not want this. you may want to do a much smaller version of this, you have to do something, but you may want to do a smaller version. you may not want that with trains and everything, super everything at the top. and maybe you won't want that. it is going to be up to them, up to the people what they want. they may not want that. i can understand that too.

but that was a version of what could happen, what could take place. as an example, they have great beaches. you see that whenever they're exploding cannons into the ocean. i said wouldn't that make a great condie behio, instead of that, you could have the best hotels in the world. think of it from a real estate perspective. you have south korea, china and they own the land in the middle. how bad is that, it is great. i told him, i said you may not want to do what's there. you may want a smaller version of it. and that could be. although i tell you what, he looked at that tape, he looked at that ipad, and i'm telling you, they really enjoyed it, i believe. yeah, go ahead. couple more. we'll do three more. go ahead. go. >> are you under cover this

week? >> entirely possible. >> do you now see kim jong-un as an equal? >> in what way? >> you just showed a video that showed you and kim jong-un on equal footing and discussing the future. >> no, i think i don't view it that way. i don't view it that way. i'll do whatever it takes to make the world a safer place. if i have to say i'm sitting on a stage, i mean, i understand what you're getting at. if i have to say i'm sitting on a stage with chairman kim and that's going to get us to save 30 million lives, maybe more than that, i'm willing to sit on the stage. i'm willing to travel to singapore, very proudly, very gladly. again, other than the fact that it is taking my time, they have given up a tremendous amount. they've given it up even before, and even add the olympics to it.

you can a